Poll : Do you allow godless clerics?

[diaglo]

before we added Supplement IV to our campaign all of the clerics were godless. they followed a religion based on alignment.

 

[jasamcarl]

I must say that I have trouble with the idea of an Aristotelian cleric. Aristotelianism was physics; it was science. Understanding Aristotelianism didn't make you an adherent of a worldview, it provided you with an analytical framework. Magic derived from Aristotelianism is arcane magic: you come to understand your world's physics so you can exploit it. Aristotelianism doesn't demand allegiance; it explains the world; that's why it could be grafted onto Christianity so easily to create high medieval thought.

You're right. I think people are thinking in a more platonic framework, though for Plato, there would have been one axis of truth, not four. You have the purity of Plato and qualitative differences of Aristotle. God this sounds pompous. I will stay out.

 

[Psion]

See, my D&D campaigns tend to lean heavily on Planescape ideas (in fact, my current game is Planescape), so things like Philosopher-Clerics and other varieties of godless Cleric make sense to me-- as do Clerics who are dyed-in-the-wool representations of their chosen deity and woe be it unto them who would say otherwise.

Just how is that Planescape?

In Planescape, there were priests with deities, pantheon priests, and the Athar. The Athar were considered somewhat remarkable in that they seemed to have no named divinity. Most of planescape was based around the concept of the character's deity existing tangibly somewhere -- take a look at the rules for clerical level loss when moving away from a deity's home plane.

And even the Athar's power source was known to reside on a specific plane.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Just how is that Planescape?

It ties in very neatly with the constant Planescape theme that beliefs had power all their own.

 

[Bloodsparrow]

So, was it the Father, the Son, or the Holy Ghost who granted the Pope domain over the Catholic Church?

It was the Father, but the Son was the method of delivery... If by "the Son" you mean Jeasus. (Mathew 16:17-18)

Moving on...

it provided you with an analytical framework. Magic derived from Aristotelianism is arcane magic: you come to understand your world's physics so you can exploit it. Aristotelianism doesn't demand allegiance; it explains the world; that's why it could be grafted onto Christianity so easily to create high medieval thought.

But there's no reason you couldn't modify that framework, or create a new framework based on those methods, to apply to the devine.

((I think you could. As in the discussion between Donny and the Science Teacher in the movie Donny Darko. They seemed to be getting somewhere but, just as it gets interesting... ))

 

[Storm Raven]

but I've never actually seen a DM place any diety constraints on a cleric... it comes up with paladins, but not clerics, IME.

I'm currently running into this as an unexpected point of contention between myself and a player in the game I am DMing. I pointed out to him that his character was behaving in a manner not really suitable to his deity's outlook, and he has gotten upset with me for "telling him how to run his character."

I have been trying to explain to him that I am not telling him how to run his character, just the probable consequences for running his character in the manner he is running it. His response has been that "my choice of deity is nothing more than which domains I select from, and means nothing more". On the other hand, I view the deities as having particular agendas, which they bestow their followers with powers to promote and advance. Thus, we are at loggerheads.

It is annoying when your assumptions about "campaign religion" are completely ignored by the players.

 

[Umbran]

It is annoying when your assumptions about "campaign religion" are completely ignored by the players.

Yes, but I always discuss my assumptions with the player before the character comes into play. I'll bet that you didn't do so. Communication is key, especially in the religion and alignment departments.

 

[Storm Raven]

You are dismissing their faith as mere knowledge of the mortal realm.

No, he's describing their faith as not being conducive to having members with kewl powerz granted by a figurehead deity.

Just because Buddhism, Taoism, Confucionism and others (including some forms of early Christianity) have no 'god' does not mean that they aren't spiritual - it's just that the existance or nonexistance of such a god is secondary to the point.

Do you have to have a cadre of individuals with kewl powerz to have a spiritual bent? Divine spell casters don't have a corner on the concept of spiritual study and enlightenment, they just have a particular method of expressing it.

The thing about Taoism and Buddhism is that they aren't about knowledge and interpersonal skills. I don't know why anyone would think that unless they haven't studied these religions.

In D&D terms, their focus would be on things like Knowledge: Philosophy, Knowledge: Religion, and Knowledge: Nature, so in D&D terms, he's pretty much right.

 

[Storm Raven]

Yes, but I always discuss my assumptions with the player before the character comes into play. I'll bet that you didn't do so. Communication is key, especially in the religion and alignment departments.

Actually, I thought I did. For example, in each write up concerning a deity, I outlined the things that were important to that deity, and what sorts of characteristics priests of that divine power would be expected to emulate and promote. I'm getting the impression that the player in question didn't read the material on deities I gave out before the campaign started.

 

[Xeriar]

(in best Keanu voice): Whoa.

You're all, like, Matrixing out on me, dude.

My personal spiritual belief is, like, way different from what I'd accept in a D&D setting....err, or something.

There is, naturally, a small difference between your personal spiritual path and one six to seven hundred million people aspire to.